Before
the Court are Plaintiff Jerry John Cadiere, Jr.'s
(“Plaintiff”) objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge assigned
to the case.[1] Plaintiff, a state prisoner housed in the
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex in Houma,
Louisiana, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government
and the Terrebonne Consolidated Government (collectively,
“Defendants”).[2] The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice as
frivolous.[3] On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation.[4] After reviewing
the complaint, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections, the record, and
the applicable law, for the following reasons, the Court will
overrule Plaintiff's objections, adopt the Report and
Recommendation, and dismiss Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

On
November 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendants.[6] In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
he previously injured his knee while in the Terrebonne Parish
Sheriff Office's care.[7] Plaintiff further alleges that he sent
requests to the medical department at the Terrebonne Parish
Criminal Justice Complex, but he was not able to see a doctor
for two months.[8] Plaintiff states that a doctor visits
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex on Tuesdays and
Thursdays.[9] Plaintiff asserts that he was off of his
medication for almost two weeks before he started to receive
medication again.[10] He also alleges that he filed written
grievances but did not receive a response.[11]

Plaintiff
seeks an order from the Court directing Defendants to fix the
problem with his knee.[12] He also seeks $2.5 million dollars
for pain and suffering and reimbursement for filing fees and
court costs.[13]

B.
Report and Recommendation Findings

On
January 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's claims as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e.[14] The Magistrate Judge noted that in
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of
New York the United States Supreme Court held that
municipalities and municipal officials sued in an official
capacity may be held liable under Section 1983.[15] However, for
the municipality or local government unit to be liable,
“a plaintiff must initially allege that an official
policy or custom ‘was a cause in fact of the
deprivation of rights inflicted.'”[16]

Here,
the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had not alleged
that his inability to see a doctor or to receive medication
was the result of a policy or custom of the
Defendants.[17]Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff failed to state a non-frivolous
claim which would entitle him to relief under Section 1983,
and his claims should be dismissed with
prejudice.[18]

C.
Plaintiff's Objections

Plaintiff
objects to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation.[19] Plaintiff avers that he followed the
jail's grievance procedures, but he did not receive a
response from jail officials.[20] He contends that he filled out
at least eight request forms to see a doctor, but he did not
receive a response.[21] He argues that the doctor visits the
jail every week on Tuesday and Thursday, but jail officials
were avoiding Plaintiff's requests.[22] He asserts
that it has now been four months, and he still has not seen a
doctor.[23] He avers that there is something wrong
with his knee, and he continues to experience pain and
suffering.[24] He contends that his civil rights have
been violated, and he requests that the Court not dismiss his
case.[25] Finally, Plaintiff notes that he has
been in the custody of the Department of Corrections since
December 5, 2016, but he still has not been transported to a
Department of Corrections facility where he could receive
treatment for his knee injury.[26]

II.
Standard of Review

A.
Review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation

In
accordance with Local Rule 73.2, this case was referred to
the Magistrate Judge to provide a Report and Recommendation.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition” of a magistrate judge on a
dispositive matter.[27] A district judge must “determine
de novo any part of the [Report and Recommendation]
that has been properly objected to.”[28] A district
court's review is limited to plain error for parts of the
report which are not properly objected to.[29]

B.
Standard for Frivolousness

A
district court has broad discretion in determining the
frivolous nature of a prisoner's complaint.[30] A complaint
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact.[31] The law “‘accords judges not
only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.'”[32] A claim has
no arguable basis in law if “it is based on
indisputable meritless legal theory.”[33] It lacks a
basis in fact if “the facts alleged are clearly
baseless.”[34] If a court finds that a prisoner's
claims are frivolous, the court must dismiss the claims
sua sponte.[35]

III.
Law and Analysis

Plaintiff
objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his
claims against Defendants be dismissed because he has not
alleged that his failure to see a doctor or his failure to
receive medication was the result of a policy or custom of
the Defendants.[36] Accordingly, the Court reviews this
issue de novo.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of
New York, the United States Supreme Court held that
municipalities and municipal officials sued in an official
capacity may be held liable under Section 1983.[37] To maintain a
Section 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must
show that officials acted in accordance with an official
policy or custom.[38] Thus, municipalities are not vicariously
liable for rights violations committed by their employees,
but they are liable whenever “their official ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.